I’ll write to Buddy about “Repeal Obamacare”

[quote=goes211]

[quote=2OLD4OKEYDOKE]

Hence, the criterion for marking each box YES or NO is given in the one sentence under each heading. A YES under a candidate indicates agreement on a specific issue, whereas a NO indicates a difference between that candidate and Buddy on that issue.

[/quote]

Nice argument style. So it would be fair for Ron Paul to have a chart that and says "Believes Pedophilia should be fully prosecuted" and put Buddy down as a "No" because Buddy has a slightly different idea child molesters should be handled? I personally would be offended by such a misleading chart but I guess Buddy sets a lower standard.

[quote=2OLD4OKEYDOKE]

So, here’s how I see the four points originally raised by g0es211 —

1. "REPEAL OBAMACARE" doesn’t equate to "Would the candidate repeal Obamacare?" The chart is to indicate how candidates compare with Buddy on the issues, so YES means agreeing with Buddy on the one-sentence criterion stated.

…

There’s a difference, and you probably favor Ron Paul on this issue, but that doesn’t mean that Buddy ever made a statement that Ron Paul would NOT repeal Obamacare.

[/quote]

So when the chart says "Repeal Obamacare" and marks Ron Paul as a NO it really only means Ron Paul would repeal Obamacare differently than Buddy would. What is the point of the chart if it is framing the debate as the only correct answer is one the agrees with Buddy? This is the sort of argument I might expect from a lawyer or politician. Either way it does not reflect well on your man Buddy.

[quote=2OLD4OKEYDOKE]I would add to this that we see how well self-regulation works (NOT) in the MF Global debacle.

[/quote]

Just to be clear we are talking about a 100 year old company, who’s new CEO the previous Governor of NJ and ex-Goldman CEO, that is regulated by the NY FED (which is run by an ex-Goldmanite) and the CFTC (which is run by an ex-Goldmanite), which is made into a primary dealer, leverages its FIAT money 40-1 to buy European sovereign debt, and ends up rehypothecating customer money to cover operating expenses before going bust.

Ok so in your world, MF Global is an example of a self regulated free market? Has Buddy been giving you some of his good stuff?
[quote=2OLD4OKEYDOKE]

FINAL BTW: Damnthematrix is probably right that we "are all giving unjustifiable capacity for any President to fix an unfixable predicament." But remember, it ain’t over ’til it’s over!
[/quote]

I agree with you both. I don’t really think that Ron Paul can save us because I don’t think there is a solution. There is going to be serious pain no matter what we do. I do think that thinking like his would be far more constructive to finding a new system but that is probably going to take a decade or more which is clearly more time than Ron Paul likely has left on the National stage.

Beyond his pro-civil liberty, anti-war, common sense economic stances, I support Ron Paul because he would give the rest of the system fits!

[/quote]

Okay. First of all, let’s be clear about Goldman Sachs that we are talking about Buddy Roemer who was interviewed on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, and the video of that interview — "Goldman friggin’ Sachs" — has since gathered YouTube viewers in the 5 figures. Now, as to what I consider an example of a self-regulated market, goes211 leaves on important entity out of the discussion — CME which presented itself to the CFTC and on numerous TV ads as a great success story for self–regulation. There’s plenty of gult to pass around, but it’s a fact that the regulator in the first instance was none other than CME, by their own acknowledgement. As recently as six months ago, they were presenting themselves all around finance TV as the paragon of successful regulation with no need for governmental interference.

I think we are agreed about Goldman Sachs, and if you will give Buddy a chance, you’ll see that he is leading the charge on that front.

But let’s get back to the problem with the BuddyRoemer "Issues" webpage —

Goes211 objects to using "Repeal Obamacare" as a heading — as it is applied to Ron Paul — and I will write to Buddy to see if that can be changed.

This conversation has been becoming a race to the bottom on fairness, and it has to be brought to a sane conclusion.

It’s unfair to compare the one-sentence under "Repeal Obamacare" which explains "in favor of an affordable system that doesn’t reject pre-existing conditions," with a hypothetical heading (at a hypothetical Ron Paul webpage) which under the heading "Prosecute Pedophilia" states a criterion "Believes Pedophilia should be fully prosecuted" and then puts Buddy down as NO on any ground whatsoever — unless Buddy believes pedophilia should not be fully prosecuted. That would be false and misleading, unless Buddy has actually said that he believes pedophilia should not be fully prosecuted. (Which, of course, Buddy has never said!)

To go to a less hypothetical issue, to an issue that relates to real election issues, suppose under "Legalize Pot," the criterion would be "Believes state marijuana law should not be fully enforced." Then, unless Paul has said that, it would be a lie to claim that he believes it, even though he has come out in favor of legalization of pot. Some issues really are best described as issues by one or two words ("Legalize Pot" or "Repeal Obamacare") even though there’s a range of opinion on each of those issues.

Anyway, I acknowledge that the "Repeal Obamacare" category is causing problems, so I am going to write to Buddy to change it. One of the problems about Obamacare is that it’s a 2.000+ page monstrosity and who knows what’s in it? So, if you just say "repeal" then you could be accused of opposing any of the changes in law that might be in the Act … but actually many people do favor certain isolated aspects of the Act although they believe the Act as a whole is so problematic (including unconstitutional sections), that it must be repealed.

The thing is that the heading "Repeal Obamacare" isn’t a question to be answered YES or NO, whereas the question "Believes pedophilia should be fully prosecuted" IS a question which can only be answered YES or NO. And it’s a question where presuming that Buddy would be listed as NO "because Buddy has a slightly different idea [how] child molesters should be handled" … that’s just stretching a hypothetical so thin that it loses meaning.

About MF Global, the thing is that CME widely advertised their supposed trustworthiness as a self-regulating success story. CME was supposed to be regulating the Merc such that the CFTC would not have to. It doesn’t work. Self-regulation doesn’t work. That’s my point, and I think Roemer and Paul are agreed on that, since Roehmer gives himself and Paul a YES on the heading "REDUCED REGULATION" with the criterion "Has a plan to reduce job killing business regulations while encouraging small business growth."

My point about the failure of self-regulation is that Buddy summarizes Paul’s position on medical insurance, accurately IMO, as followa–

"Paul’s plan to simply let the private market regulate healthcare is out of touch with mainstream, independent-minded voters."

I would go farther and say that hoping that a deregulated insurance industry would successfully self-regulate under market mechanisms is nonsense. Without regulation at least guaranteeing transparency as to reserves and administration of pay-outs, insurance degenerates into a scam exactly like what happened with AIG and what happened with MF Global/CME. The insurance industry today is part and parcel of the globalized finance system — including political corruption — that is problematic exactly as MF Global exemplifies.